Crazy weather is turning out to be the most visible sign of global warming.
Expect more of it, and crazier.
Want to know why? Look for Hansen, "Climate Dice".

Kim

I used to live in Tahoe, but it's been a few years since I was a snowboarder. That picture brings back a couple of the best days of my life clearly into mind.

I hesitate to assign our dry winter to global warming without doing more research. Despite our reputation for beautiful weather, northern California and the Sierra Nevada has always been plagued by droughts and floods... which is another reason to worry about climate weirdness... if they get even more weird, we're really going to have some difficulty out here.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

If CO2 is an effect (which lags) temperature changes, and it was not merely an initial event, then cause-effect relationship doesn't change.

Buckwheat wrote:
In the past, warming intiated by changes in Earth's orbiatal characteristics triggered a chain of events. This time, human activity (extracting hydrocarbons from deep within the earth and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere) is triggering a chain of events.

I bolded what I believe is important in your quote .

Even before humans, the Earth was naturally releasing CO2. In your own quote you use words such as "extracting" and "releasing" implying that we do not produce but release and emit already existing natural stores.

Buckwheat wrote:
The definition of "feedback" is that CO2 is both a cause and an effect of global warming

This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., "confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation." Nevertheless, they and many others continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 -- which is believed to be due to warming-induced CO2 outgassing from the world's oceans -- serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place. This belief, however, is founded on unproven assumptions about the strength of CO2-induced warming and is applied without any regard for biologically-induced negative climate feedbacks that may occur in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Also, there is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

click on the image to show all of it.
Here is graph of temperature for the past 12,000 years. (right is present, left is past).
Please note, the average temperature is going down and that is with all alleged human induced warming... Nothing strange except that with all the alleged human made warming due to CO2 emissions, there is nothing abnormal in temperature which is falling btw.

Vostok-12kyr1-550x434.png (98.33 KiB) Viewed 1551 times

Here is graph of temperature for the past 350,000 years to put the above into more proper context.

Vostok-350kyr-550x434.png (70.49 KiB) Viewed 1551 times

caseagainstco2a.JPG (105.43 KiB) Viewed 1539 times

Please note:
1912 to 1961: the temperature increase is 0.52C, while the CO2 increase was 18ppm.
1962 to 2011: the temperature increase is 0.41C, while the CO2 increase was 74ppm.
If CO2 amplifies global warming, then shouldn't it mean that more co2 = warmer, less co2=colder?
This graph shows that the role of CO2 is over-exaggerated

I am perfectly willing to accept AGW if I see sufficient reasons. So far, and as charts above show, I have no reason believing in humans significantly, if any, contributing to warming.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Thanks for that link, Dmytro.
I read it and was a bit dubious about it, so I checked whether it attracted any attention on Realclimate. It did. The comment that came closest to my reaction was ...

That Economist article is strange. It has the whiff of being written by an idiot who is at most ambivalent about AGW. Yet the actual content is not greatly in error. It is its composition, its emphasis that sucks. And this it does so badly as to make it a grossly misleading account.

Thanks for that link, Dmytro.
I read it and was a bit dubious about it, so I checked whether it attracted any attention on Realclimate. It did. The comment that came closest to my reaction was ...

That Economist article is strange. It has the whiff of being written by an idiot who is at most ambivalent about AGW. Yet the actual content is not greatly in error. It is its composition, its emphasis that sucks. And this it does so badly as to make it a grossly misleading account.

I noticed Ad Hominem again. I've bolded it. I don't think that AGW proponents make themselves more believable by calling others "idiot" or "denialist" (nobody denies climate change and denialist sounds like a holocaust denial) or by saying "that sucks". Тоо me it even looks like desperation.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Thanks for that link, Dmytro.
I read it and was a bit dubious about it, so I checked whether it attracted any attention on Realclimate. It did. The comment that came closest to my reaction was ...

That Economist article is strange. It has the whiff of being written by an idiot who is at most ambivalent about AGW. Yet the actual content is not greatly in error. It is its composition, its emphasis that sucks. And this it does so badly as to make it a grossly misleading account.

I noticed Ad Hominem again. I've bolded it. I don't think that AGW proponents make themselves more believable by calling others "idiot" or "denialist" (nobody denies climate change and denialist sounds like a holocaust denial) or by saying "that sucks". Тоо me it even looks like desperation.

"Denial" is a common term in pop-psychology (and possibly real psychology). Our use of it has nothing to do with the holocaust, and everything with seeing a group of people in denial about the reality of something that is clearly evident to the vast majority of climate scientists.

This is not ad hominem, which is by definition irrelevant to the point being discussed. Kim was showing that the article, like so many written by denialists, cherry-picks the real data from a scientific report, but continues to draw their own conclusions, based not on science, but on their personal journalistic agenda. Therefore, the argument in the article is suspect. The conclusions inferred from the data have not been subjected to the peer-review process, they are simply the opinion of a journalist and the editor. That is very relevant.

Buckwheat wrote:"Denial" is a common term in pop-psychology (and possibly real psychology). Our use of it has nothing to do with the holocaust, and everything with seeing a group of people in denial about the reality of something that is clearly evident to the vast majority of climate scientists.

Nobody denies that climate changes.

Buckwheat wrote:
This is not ad hominem, which is by definition irrelevant to the point being discussed.

Since when calling someone an "idiot" rather than providing better point by point refutation of a view is not ad hominem?

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. link

What do you have to say about more recent charts that I've provided in my post?

Even with all the human CO2 emission, the overall temperature can go down and in the 1970's there was a global cooling scare, yet human CO2 emissions continued to rise. If CO2 amplified global warming, as you kept saying, why as CO2 emissions rise, temperature doesn't always rise?

How much long term correlation is there between CO2 levels on Earth and temperature?
CO2 rose from 4,400 to 7,000 yet average global temperature remained steady at ~23C. (1st half of Cambrian)
CO2 fell from 7,000ppm to ~4,400 yet average global temperature remained steady at ~23C (2nd half of Cambrian)
CO2 fell from ~4,400 to 3,000 yet average global temperature was flat at ~23C (Silurian)
CO2 rose and fell between 3,000 and 4,000 yet global temperature remained at ~23C. (end of Silurian and first half of Devonian).
CO2 fell from 2,000 to ~900, yet average global temperature increased and then stayed at ~21C (Cretaceous)
*CO2 numbers are in ppm

Buckwheat wrote:like so many written by denialists, cherry-picks the real data from a scientific report, but continues to draw their own conclusions,

Cherry picking the data is when someone claims that today's temperature rise is catastrophic and draw hockey-stick graphs where you compare the current temperature to one of the coldest periods it has ever been in past 600 million years, rather than to the USUAL temperatures.

Since we are in interglacial, of course the temperature is going to sometimes bounce off a little bit from the lows. This has nothing to do with human activity. If you check my graphs above, even the rate of change today is not that big as it was before in past 12,000 years.

In 1970s there was global cooling scare, yet CO2 levels were increasing. Then came global warming concern. Then as temperatures weren't always rising, the AGW proponents made a smart move at renaming to "climate change", as if climate doesn't change. Now, no matter how climate changes (becomes hotter or colder) it can conveniently be blamed on humans.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Buckwheat wrote:"Denial" is a common term in pop-psychology (and possibly real psychology). Our use of it has nothing to do with the holocaust, and everything with seeing a group of people in denial about the reality of something that is clearly evident to the vast majority of climate scientists.

Nobody denies that climate changes.

Kool Aide is what "The Sheeple" drink when they cannot understand factors , and/or think past the science of climatology. Suggest that all the sciences must be consulted before deciding the exact cause of global warming.

And be reminded: No matter which way the temperature fluctuates with respect to anthropometrically generated CO2, the fact still remains that "correlation does not equal cause." ... no matter what your local climatologist believes. There is a reason why they cannot predict the weather accurately beyond four days.

Cause and correlation are terms that are often confused or used incorrectly. A correlation means a relationship between two or more things: when one increases, the other increases, or when one increases, the other decreases. A cause is something that results in an effect; for example, heating water to a certain temperature will make it boil. The crucial point is that a correlation between two things does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. If there is a relationship between two phenomena, A and B, it could be that A causes B, or it could be that B is responsible for A; other possibilities are that some other factor is the reason for both A and B, or that they have independent causes that just happen to run in parallel.

Correlation

Researchers trying to find reasons for various things will often use statistical methods to establish correlations: this may be the first step toward establishing the cause. Scientists and statisticians can use a formula to determine the strength of a relationship between two phenomena. This gives a figure, known as the square of the correlation coefficient, or R2, which always lies between 0 and 1, with a value closer to 1 indicating a stronger correlation.

What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
And be reminded: No matter which way the temperature fluctuates with respect to anthropometrically generated CO2, the fact still remains that "correlation does not equal cause." ... no matter what your local climatologist believes.

Right, correlation is not causation.

Also, it seems that no matter what the weather does (rises or falls), some can still keep blaming human's CO2 emissions for it - no matter what it does.
Even if there are less than normal amount of extreme events, humans could still be blamed...

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
There is a reason why they cannot predict the weather accurately beyond four days.

And yet, some find cataclysmic predictions and how warm it will be in the next 10-100 years credible...

Am I missing something?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
And be reminded: No matter which way the temperature fluctuates with respect to anthropometrically generated CO2, the fact still remains that "correlation does not equal cause." ... no matter what your local climatologist believes.

Right, correlation is not causation.

Also, it seems that no matter what the weather does (rises or falls), some can still keep blaming human's CO2 emissions for it - no matter what it does.
Even if there are less than normal amount of extreme events, humans could still be blamed...

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
There is a reason why they cannot predict the weather accurately beyond four days.

And yet, some find cataclysmic predictions and how warm it will be in the next 10-100 years credible...

Am I missing something?

Yes. And you will continue to miss it until you start drinking the global warming KoolAid . I think it has something in it like peyote, which makes you see what the "climatologists" want you to see.

In the mean time, only buy property in the highlands

What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
And be reminded: No matter which way the temperature fluctuates with respect to anthropometrically generated CO2, the fact still remains that "correlation does not equal cause." ... no matter what your local climatologist believes.

Right, correlation is not causation.

Also, it seems that no matter what the weather does (rises or falls), some can still keep blaming human's CO2 emissions for it - no matter what it does.
Even if there are less than normal amount of extreme events, humans could still be blamed...

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
There is a reason why they cannot predict the weather accurately beyond four days.

And yet, some find cataclysmic predictions and how warm it will be in the next 10-100 years credible...

Am I missing something?

Yes. And you will continue to miss it until you start drinking the global warming KoolAid . I think it has something in it like peyote, which makes you see what the "climatologists" want you to see.

In the mean time, only buy property in the highlands, unless you have learned to breathe through your gills.

What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

guess i'm breaking my promise to Tilt, but i'm encouraged to see Alex, Ron and one of the best periodicals ever published (and i suppose by implication Dmytro), the Economist, carrying on my twisted evil crtical work against climate change "science"

extreme, crazy, bad weather's all our fault and if we don't do something about it we'll be sorry...

how long do we have to hear this until time finally reveals how silly it is...

if the geolocial record is accurate, we haven't seen extreme, bad or crazy weather for a long time, and if we do there'll be no doubt that it wasn't caused by us...

believing that our tiny little human perspective can reveal anything about climate change patterns, and believing we have anything but a miniscule effect on the climate, is egocentriciy sublimated and turned into anthrocentricity...get over yourselves

danieLion wrote:guess i'm breaking my promise to Tilt, but i'm encouraged to see Alex, Ron and one of the best periodicals ever published (and i suppose by implication Dmytro), the Economist, carrying on my twisted evil crtical work against climate change "science"

extreme, crazy, bad weather's all our fault and if we don't do something about it we'll be sorry...

how long do we have to hear this until time finally reveals how silly it is...

if the geolocial record is accurate, we haven't seen extreme, bad or crazy weather for a long time, and if we do there'll be no doubt that it wasn't caused by us...

believing that our tiny little human perspective can reveal anything about climate change patterns, and believing we have anything but a miniscule effect on the climate, is egocentriciy sublimated and turned into anthrocentricity...get over yourselves

"Critical work" would be very welcome if they (and you) stuck to the kind of intellectual rigour that you profess. However, the "arguments" and the "data" offered here would make every dead logician turn in his grave and certainly make me swear not to look at this thread again.

danieLion wrote:...how long do we have to hear this until time finally reveals how silly it is...

I'd say we will possibly all be old before this happens.

In the meantime, I do notice (regarding this topic) that not one believer has turned sceptic, and not one sceptic has turned believer. We come to no conclusion with this debate, but only experience dissonance between otherwise mutual friends in the Dhamma. And imho, our friendship in the Dhamma matters much more than this debate.

In peace

"To these too I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified."- from the Desanaa Sutta